From the outside of the office building at 231 N Martingale in Schaumburg—you would never guess that this building is a Commercial Blight Area.  But it is—according to the Village of Schaumburg!  The Village approved the designation based on an outside consultant’s report and without verifying the report.    Due diligence by the Village is so perfunctory and meager that the Village Board and staff were not aware of what buildings were in their own Commercial Blight Area Resolution!

The report describes widespread code violations, decay, and substandard conditions requiring a wall-to-wall demolition.  There are numerous appalling photos documenting widespread demolition debris, wires hanging from the ceilings, walls with huge holes and ceiling tiles broken, and half-demolished raised floors.   Photo after photo focus even on trivial flaws such as exposed nails, a broken sidewalk light, erosion around a parking lot drain, and cracks in the parking lot.   But just who is responsible for these conditions is not indicated as part of the report.

True Partners Consulting authored this blight report.  True Partners is not an independent fact finding group hired by the Village. They are hired guns who wrote this report to benefit Career Education Corporation and the building owner. The motivation behind the report was to make the building look as bad as possible so it can be declared blighted and so it can qualify for a huge 7B tax break.   This report contains numerous errors and omissions and fails to provide convincing evidence to support designating the area as a Commercial Blight Area.

The nearby office buildings and the Woodfield shopping areas are generally affluent and well maintained area.  The Woodfield commercial area is not blighted by any stretch of the imagination.  This isolated single building was designated as a Commercial Blight Area to justify a tax break, not because of a genuine desire to correct legitimate blight. This is not some slum in the inner city of Chicago.

There is a scoring system for a “blighted area” as specified by State Law (65 ILCS 5/Art. 11 Div. 74.2).  The law considers 14 factors.  All True Partners need to do is find the building has 5 of them.  True Partners claim they found 8.   According to True Partners, the area is blighted because the building meets the following criteria:

The criteria are:

• dilapidation,
• obsolescence,
• deterioration,
• below minimum code standards,
• excessive vacancies,
• lack of ventilation, light, or sanitary facilities,
• Excessive land coverage, and
• Depreciation or lack of physical maintenance.

• Age was cited as a minor blighting factor.   The fact the law does not define what these factors mean combined with the unknown credentials of True Partners to evaluate building systems results in a subjective and arbitrary report.

Actually, the primary cause of deterioration in this building was caused by the actions and neglect of the owner – and not as a result of wear and tear or a true abandonment.  None of these factors were present in late 2005 when I worked there.  All other factors, except for vacancy and age, are little different than when the building was last occupied and paying its fair share of taxes.     The only clear blight factor is vacancy.

Dilapidation, deterioration, obsolescence, and lack of maintenance

1. Photos 1 and 2, and 4 through 7 and the related descriptions show that much of the damage and debris shown is the result of either a destructive exit of the last tenant or the result of a botched and incomplete demolition of raised floors.   Damage resulting from a tenant leaving the building in poor condition is a matter between the owner and the tenant—that should not be the responsibility of taxpayers or be considered blight.
2. After Keystone Properties purchased the building, there were two demolition permits for floors 3, 4, 5, and 6 where there were raised computer floors.   Damage and debris caused by a botched and incomplete demolition is the responsibility of the owner.  It is not blight and not the responsibility of taxpayers.  This report should have included an explanation from Keystone Properties on how this damage and debris occurred, who did it, and why it was not cleaned up earlier.
3. The rotted wood floor in the lower level shown in photo 3 was fine when I left in 2005.   This area was just a small area in a hall outside the cafeteria.   This indicates owner neglect, not blight. The vast majority of flooring in the building outside of computer rooms was carpet tiles.
4. The report claims the owners spent $11 million for demolition, but that figure may include all work done on the building since it was purchased, not just demolition.   I have all the permits since Keystone Property Group purchased the building—and it adds up to less than $2 million—a $9 million discrepancy.   This report should show a breakdown of the $11 million, to show where the owner invested in the building.   From the reports, there was money for a window façade, lobby, and lower level.   So why wasn’t there money for basic maintenance, damage repairs, or debris removal?
5. The report said the raised floors in the building needed to be demolished.   A raised floor is not blight, but an improvement.  They are valuable for computer rooms and are not obsolete as True Partners claims.  For the right tenant they are an asset, not a liability.   If Keystone Properties decided to remove the raised floors because they thought it would attract a wider tenant pool, that is their right.    It appears, however, during this remodeling, Keystone Properties changed their minds, stopped the project and did not clean up their own mess.     Fixing a botched remodeling job is the owner’s responsibility—not the taxpayers.
6. Some of the pictures are just debris.   If they can put in a million dollar façade, why can’t they get a dumpster and take out the trash.  Some of it is clearly telecom gear from IBM or AT&T that has been sitting there for 4 years.   Give me a break!  It is outrageous to label this blight and expect the taxpayers to pick up after these slobs. Because the pictures do not identify a floor or a date and do not cover all the floors, it is impossible to assess the extent of the problem.
7. The report is not concerned with who caused the damage. I worked in this building until shortly before IBM left in January of 2006. None of the damage shown was present! The owners, past or present, are responsible for this damage and deterioration.   They had means to fix it.  They didn’t.   Keystone Properties bought the building “as is”.   If damage was already there when they bought it from J.P. Morgan, the new owner knew about it and assumed responsibility.  The taxpayers should not be asked to help pay to fix self-inflicted damage and deterioration.
8. The report says the property is blighted because of cracks in the parking lot and it is too small.   Most parking lots have cracks – That does not constitute blight. This parking lot is better than the lots across the street at the Marriott and at Woodfield where it is easy to finds cracks and potholes.  
9. The report claims economic obsolescence due to vacancy and a $6 million drop in property tax revenue since 2005.  According to Cook County Assessor records, the drop was due to vacancy and perhaps market value declines.  Any commercial building can get tax abatements for vacancy and market declines.  All commercial real estate is down in value and up in vacancies across the country.  Should all such buildings be  subsidized?
10. The report claims Functional Obsolescence due to old lighting and HVAC systems.  The lights and HVAC were adequate in 2005 when I worked there.   There are no independent inspection reports to substantiate this.   What are True Partners credentials to evaluate mechanical and electrical systems?  If the owners want to replace lighting due to their desire to convert computer rooms to offices, that’s remodeling, not blight.  If the owners want to replace working HVAC systems with something better, that is an upgrade, not blight.

Presence of structures below minimum code standards

True Partner’s report claims there are fire code violations, but there is no evidence of fire code violations in records of Village fire inspections.  Fire inspectors are the experts, not True Partners.  There are pictures showing exposed wiring, but if code violations exist, they owner should fix them immediately.  There have been several permits for fire system improvements since the owner purchased the building and it appears fire safety is not the problem that True Partners claims.

True Partners claims extensive parts of the building are below code.  What codes?  What are True Partners qualifications to evaluate building systems?  What codes actually require action in this case?   None of these relevant details are provided.   A check of village records shows no evidence to support True Partner’s claims!  Despites numerous inspections for other projects, there is not one documented building code violation since 2007. The Village Planning director says it is not enforcing certain codes due to vacancy.  If the Village did not consider it a big enough deal to write up any violations in 2007 and 2008, then why is it suddenly a big deal now?   It is because it is all about getting a big corporation a huge tax break, not a genuine concern for blight.  

The report mentioned the bathroom doors are not ADA requirement.  That one I believe.   That should be fixed.

Vacancy

1. There is no argument that the property is vacant.   The economy is partly to blame.  There are very high vacancy rates for commercial property nationwide.   An additional reason for vacancy may also be that the building owner allowed damage and deterioration and that make the property unattractive.

Lack of ventilation, light, or sanitary facilities

1. The report claims that lighting, windows, and HVAC are inadequate but all these were satisfactory when I left in 2005.   Again, there are no evaluations by inspectors qualified in HVAC or electrical.  True Partners claims that some HVAC problems relate to a fire in 2003 in HVAC equipment on the roof.  However, permit records show that the faulty equipment was replaced within weeks.  If they need to remove walls to allow more natural light, that is a remodeling decision and not evidence of blight.

Excessive land coverage

1. There is no problem with excessive land coverage.  In the 15 years I worked there, the parking lot was rarely full.  Parking was adequate for IBM and Zurich America before that. Even if it became a problem, they could arrange for overflow parking at the parking deck across the street.   If parking is inadequate because they plan to cram more people into smaller cubicles, then the problem is not inadequate parking, but a building that is just too small for Career Education.   That is not blight.  If you limit the occupancy to what the building and parking can handle, then there is no need for a new parking deck subsidized by the taxpayer.

Much of what this report calls blight was caused by the owners.  Much of it is remodeling that a new tenant wants.  Much of it is to convert a building from class B to class A, which is a private investment choice.  In summary, this report is a sham and fails to prove this building is blighted.

No related posts.